A discussion on divorce has been ongoing in Malta in recent years. But more often than not it is prompted by wounded feelings and emotions, rather than by clear thinking. Any serious discussion, which is meant to lead to a reasonable conclusion and prudent decisions, should start from facts and be based on objective information.
In our case, we have had plenty of discussion but very little, if any, rigorous scientific research. We may be running the risk of giving vent to much wishful thinking without weighing carefully the real needs of our society.
To gather facts - and some facts are hard indeed - more research about family problems is required.
Research should be carried out in two directions: first, to explore the common causes behind marital breakdowns, such as disagreements, financial headaches and infidelity. For even in this case, prevention is better than cure. This kind of information may also be helpful for the purpose of protecting the numerous healthy families, who want to remain united.
Second, research will enable us to gain more information on the consequences of divorce. It may be of great help if one could have access to records of courts, schools, prisons, etc, and other such sources, both local and foreign. Very often, divorce has been described as "the greatest, if not the greatest of causes, of social ills". Research can establish to what extent this is true.
In certain countries where Western culture prevails, divorce is granted easily and sometimes for very trivial motives, just by a petition of one or both spouses. However, there are other states where divorce can be obtained only from the courts, and just for specific causes.
The very fact that governments have felt the need to change the divorce law so often and the immense diversity between one state and another is in itself an indication that, even where it has been introduced, many problems remain unresolved. We have much to learn from other countries that have gone through this hard and painful experience.
It is important to mention two important caveats: namely the position of the Christian conscience vis-a-vis divorce, and the limits of the civil law, which makes it legal.
It should be remembered that one of the fundamental tenets of Christian religion has always been the indestructibility of the family unit. Indissolubility is an attribute of marriage; thus it belongs to marriage by natural necessity. Therefore, according to this principle every marriage, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is indissoluble. Otherwise it is no marriage at all. If indissolubility is removed, marriage is always haunted by the spectre of nullity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mince words on the subject: "Divorce is a grave offence against the natural law. It claims to break the contract to which the spouses freely consented to live with each other till death. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognised by civil law, adds to the gravity of rupture, the remarried spouse is then in permanent adultery."
Conscientious Christians are aware of this doctrine, based on the Gospel, and abide by it. Hence, for them, any thought of getting a divorce or of favouring legislation on its introduction is out of the question. In fact, even in cases when separation or divorce has been obtained, the Church, in coherence with the above-mentioned principle, never ceases to endeavour to bring about reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so.
The purpose of civil law is to provide for the genuine common good of society. Therefore, it should reflect in some way the basic human values and never run counter to them. In other words, it must conform with natural law. This means that governments exist to enforce rights and duties, which they themselves did not create and are not entitled to abrogate.
The will of the parliamentary majority, or even the decision of citizens through a referendum, are not enough to justify a civil law which conflicts with natural law. They cannot make honest what in itself is intrinsically not. Legislation which contravenes the laws of higher order is not honest, and as a consequence lacks validity and does not bind the conscience of citizens.
Notwithstanding all the social upheavals we experience, it is up to the numerous people who still regard marriage as an essential institution - and those who attach great value to the family unit - to contribute their thoughts to the current discussion over whether a divorce law might jeopardise the values they treasure so dearly.